Free birth control could soon be a reality. A medical advisory panel from the Institute of Medicine--a non-partisan group--recommended to the Health and Human Services Department eight services for women it believes should qualify as preventive care, including contraception, reportsTheNew York Times.

Under health care reform, insurers must fully cover the cost of preventive care. That means if these guidelines the group has just outlined are adopted, birth control would be preventative care, resulting in free birth control for all. As of now, most insurance companies have some contraceptive coverage with copays, explains The New York Times.

Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of Health and Human Services, is taking recommendations from medical panels into account as she decides on a minimum package of essential health benefits to take effect in 2013, which Congress won't need to approve.

But those looking to save on prescriptions should hold off on rejoicing--these are just recommendations. The Obama administration has yet to adopt any new measures and Sebelius didn't give any indication of her position in her murky statement.

"Before today, guidelines regarding women's health and preventive care did not exist," she said. "These recommendations are based on science and existing literature and I appreciate the hard work and thoughtful analysis that went into this report."

The panel justified its ruling on contraceptive coverage citing the stats: Nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and about 40 percent of unwanted pregnancies end in abortion. Increasing the availability of birth control would then equal fewer unintended pregnancies and abortions, explains the New York Times.

Even though Sebelius has yet to show her support or disapproval of any of the panel's suggestions, which also include HIV screening and support for breast-feeding mothers, murmurs of the possibility of government subsidized birth control have political observers on both sides fired up. The arguments thus far are as follows:

Without the subsidy, birth control costs too much

More people would take precautions, if they could afford to do so. Birth control isn't cheap, as The Nation's Sharon Lerner explains. "Financially, women will be spared a huge burden. Birth control pills can cost more than $60 per month. Now, even most women whose plans 'cover' birth control do so only partially, leaving them with an average cost of $14 per pack. Getting an IUD inserted can cost hundreds." Planned Parenthood seconds this sentiment, framing the recommendation as promoting economic equality:

"Millions of women, especially young women, struggle every day to afford prescription birth control," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "Today's recommendation brings us a step closer to ensuring that all newly insured women under the health care reform law will have access to prescription birth control without out-of-pocket expenses."

Not only will this save individual pill takers some dough, but the initiative could even cut costs for the government. "Publicly supported family planning clinics save taxpayers $3.74 for every $1 that is spent providing contraceptive care, according to the Guttmacher Institute," explains Lerner.

Subsidized birth control is a win for women's rights

Greater access to birth control gives women more control over their sexuality, and these new recommendations are a step forward for women's rights, argues Democratic Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, quoted in The New York Times. "We are one step closer to saying goodbye to an era when simply being a woman is treated as a pre-existing condition ... We are saying hello to an era where decisions about preventive care and screenings are made by a woman and her doctor, not by an insurance company."

But pregnancy is not a "condition"

Religious groups such as The Family Research Council and The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and have expressed their disapproval of government funded birth control, according to CBS. "Pregnancy is not a disease, and fertility is not a pathological condition to be suppressed," Deirdre A. McQuade, a spokeswoman for the bishops' Pro-Life Secretariat told The New York Times. Calling birth control "preventative care" would suggest there is some illness to be prevented, these groups argue.

Tax-payer money shouldn't fund contraception

If people morally oppose birth control, they shouldn't have to pay for it, right? That's how The Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council feels. "They should not be forced to violate their conscience by paying premiums to health plans that cover these items and services," they told The New York Times.

Jeannie Monahan of the Family Research Council seconds that sentiment in an interview with NPR, "Say, for example, that I had a problem with it. I would be paying into a plan that would be covering them. So, it would be objectionable because I would be paying into that plan. In a way, I would be forced to pay for it myself." The guidelines would also cover Plan B, which pro-life groups liken to abortion, "Those seven to 10 days before a baby can implant, Plan B can prevent that implantation, and thereby, cause the demise of that baby. So, we'd be opposed to those drugs being included because they act as abortifacients."

Forget God, this is about science

"I am morally opposed to both the war in Afghanistan and paying for Dick Cheney's steampunk heart, but I'm not within my rights to refuse to pay taxes," points out Jezebel's Erin Glorai Ryan. This is government legislation, and personal feelings like this are irrelevant, she argues:

People who become pharmacists but refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control or the morning after pill (or anything else related to wanton women's harlotry) because God sez they shouldn't have to are like pilots who refuse to fly over bodies of water because they're pretty sure Poseidon is mad at them.

Given the strong backlash from the religious and pro-life community, Ryan isn't betting the recommendations will pass. Furthermore, "I'm assuming that if the Obama administration puts its stamp of approval on these recommendations, thus mandating that taxpayers foot the bill for The Pill, it will unleash a wave of crazy screeching Bachmannalia and the streets will run red, white, and blue, with the blood of misspelled protest signs."

About the Author

Most Popular

About 10 years ago, after I’d graduated college but when I was still waitressing full-time, I attended an empowerment seminar. It was the kind of nebulous weekend-long event sold as helping people discover their dreams and unburden themselves from past trauma through honesty exercises and the encouragement to “be present.” But there was one moment I’ve never forgotten. The group leader, a man in his 40s, asked anyone in the room of 200 or so people who’d been sexually or physically abused to raise their hands. Six or seven hands tentatively went up. The leader instructed us to close our eyes, and asked the question again. Then he told us to open our eyes. Almost every hand in the room was raised.

And there could be far-reaching consequences for the national economy too.

Four floors above a dull cinder-block lobby in a nondescript building at the Ohio State University, the doors of a slow-moving elevator open on an unexpectedly futuristic 10,000-square-foot laboratory bristling with technology. It’s a reveal reminiscent of a James Bond movie. In fact, the researchers who run this year-old, $750,000 lab at OSU’s Spine Research Institute resort often to Hollywood comparisons.

Thin beams of blue light shoot from 36 of the same kind of infrared motion cameras used to create lifelike characters for films like Avatar. In this case, the researchers are studying the movements of a volunteer fitted with sensors that track his skeleton and muscles as he bends and lifts. Among other things, they say, their work could lead to the kind of robotic exoskeletons imagined in the movie Aliens.

Four decades ago Jimmy Carter was sworn in as the 39th president of the U.S., the original Star Wars movie was released in theaters, and much more.

Four decades ago Jimmy Carter was sworn in as the 39th president of the United States, the original Star Wars movie was released in theaters, the Trans-Alaska pipeline pumped its first barrels of oil, New York City suffered a massive blackout, Radio Shack introduced its new TRS-80 Micro Computer, Grace Jones was a disco queen, the Brazilian soccer star Pele played his “sayonara” game in Japan, and much more. Take a step into a visual time capsule now, for a brief look at the year 1977.

In the media world, as in so many other realms, there is a sharp discontinuity in the timeline: before the 2016 election, and after.

Things we thought we understood—narratives, data, software, news events—have had to be reinterpreted in light of Donald Trump’s surprising win as well as the continuing questions about the role that misinformation and disinformation played in his election.

Tech journalists covering Facebook had a duty to cover what was happening before, during, and after the election. Reporters tried to see past their often liberal political orientations and the unprecedented actions of Donald Trump to see how 2016 was playing out on the internet. Every component of the chaotic digital campaign has been reported on, here at The Atlantic, and elsewhere: Facebook’s enormous distribution power for political information, rapacious partisanship reinforced by distinct media information spheres, the increasing scourge of “viral” hoaxes and other kinds of misinformation that could propagate through those networks, and the Russian information ops agency.

More comfortable online than out partying, post-Millennials are safer, physically, than adolescents have ever been. But they’re on the brink of a mental-health crisis.

One day last summer, around noon, I called Athena, a 13-year-old who lives in Houston, Texas. She answered her phone—she’s had an iPhone since she was 11—sounding as if she’d just woken up. We chatted about her favorite songs and TV shows, and I asked her what she likes to do with her friends. “We go to the mall,” she said. “Do your parents drop you off?,” I asked, recalling my own middle-school days, in the 1980s, when I’d enjoy a few parent-free hours shopping with my friends. “No—I go with my family,” she replied. “We’ll go with my mom and brothers and walk a little behind them. I just have to tell my mom where we’re going. I have to check in every hour or every 30 minutes.”

Those mall trips are infrequent—about once a month. More often, Athena and her friends spend time together on their phones, unchaperoned. Unlike the teens of my generation, who might have spent an evening tying up the family landline with gossip, they talk on Snapchat, the smartphone app that allows users to send pictures and videos that quickly disappear. They make sure to keep up their Snapstreaks, which show how many days in a row they have Snapchatted with each other. Sometimes they save screenshots of particularly ridiculous pictures of friends. “It’s good blackmail,” Athena said. (Because she’s a minor, I’m not using her real name.) She told me she’d spent most of the summer hanging out alone in her room with her phone. That’s just the way her generation is, she said. “We didn’t have a choice to know any life without iPads or iPhones. I think we like our phones more than we like actual people.”

The foundation of Donald Trump’s presidency is the negation of Barack Obama’s legacy.

It is insufficient to statethe obvious of Donald Trump: that he is a white man who would not be president were it not for this fact. With one immediate exception, Trump’s predecessors made their way to high office through the passive power of whiteness—that bloody heirloom which cannot ensure mastery of all events but can conjure a tailwind for most of them. Land theft and human plunder cleared the grounds for Trump’s forefathers and barred others from it. Once upon the field, these men became soldiers, statesmen, and scholars; held court in Paris; presided at Princeton; advanced into the Wilderness and then into the White House. Their individual triumphs made this exclusive party seem above America’s founding sins, and it was forgotten that the former was in fact bound to the latter, that all their victories had transpired on cleared grounds. No such elegant detachment can be attributed to Donald Trump—a president who, more than any other, has made the awful inheritance explicit.

How a seemingly innocuous phrase became a metonym for the skewed sexual politics of show business

The chorus of condemnation against Harvey Weinstein, as dozens of women have come forward to accuse the producer of serial sexual assault and harassment, has often turned on a quaint-sounding show-business cliché: the “casting couch.” Glenn Close, for instance, expressed her anger that “the ‘casting couch’ phenomenon, so to speak, is still a reality in our business and in the world.”

The casting couch—where, as the story goes, aspiring actresses had to trade sexual favors in order to win roles—has been a familiar image in Hollywood since the advent of the studio system in the 1920s and ’30s. Over time, the phrase has become emblematic of the way that sexual aggression has been normalized in an industry dominated by powerful men.

A driver, a transportation official, and a transit advocate explain why Seattle recently saw one of the biggest citywide increases in passenger numbers.

Almost every major U.S. city has seen years of decline in bus ridership, but Seattle has been the exception in recent years. Between 2010 and 2014, Seattle experienced the biggest jump of any major U.S. city. At its peak in 2015, around 78,000 people, or about one in five Seattle workers, rode the bus to work.

That trend has cooled slightly since then, but Seattle continues to see increased overall transit ridership, bucking the national trend of decline. In 2016, Seattle saw transit ridership increase by 4.1 percent—only Houston and Milwaukee saw even half that increase in the same year.

Bus service is crucial to reducing emissions in the Seattle region. According to King County Metro, which serves the region, nearly half of all greenhouse gas emissions in Washington state come from transportation and its operation displaces roughly four times as many emissions as it generates, by taking cars off the road and reducing traffic congestion. The public transit authority has been recognized for its commitment to sustainability and its bus fleet is projected to be 100 percent hybrid or electric by 2018.

The president managed to cause a brief firestorm by falsely accusing predecessors of neglecting slain soldiers, but real answers about why four men were killed are still elusive.

On October 4, four American Special Forces soldiers were killed during an operation in Niger. Since then, the White House has been notably tight-lipped about the incident. During a press conference Monday afternoon, 12 days after the deaths, President Trump finally made his first public comments, but the remarks—in which he admitted he had not yet spoken with the families and briefly attacked Barack Obama—did little to clarify what happened or why the soldiers were in Niger.

Trump spoke at the White House after a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and was asked why he hadn’t spoken about deaths of Sergeant La David Johnson and Staff Sergeants Bryan Black, Dustin Wright, and Jeremiah Johnson.

For the first time, astronomers have detected visible light and gravitational waves from the same source, ushering in a new era in our attempt to understand the cosmos.

In September of 2015, astronomers detected, for the first time, gravitational waves, cosmic ripples that distort the very fabric of space and time. They came from a violent merger of two black holes somewhere in the universe, more than a billion light-years away from Earth. Astronomers observed the phenomenon again in December, and then again in November 2016, and then again in August of this year. The discoveries confirmed a century-old prediction by Albert Einstein, earned a Nobel prize, and ushered in a new field of astronomy.

But while astronomers could observe the effects of the waves in the sensitive instruments built to detect them, they couldn’t see the source. Black holes, as their name suggests, don’t emit any light. To directly observe the origin of gravitational waves, astronomers needed a different kind of collision to send the ripples Earth’s way. This summer, they finally got it.